“We have long had a tradition from the beginning of this country of respecting religious liberty and accommodating and respecting the good-faith religious views of our citizens [....] it is only the intolerance of the current day of the far-left that views with which they disagree — the far-left is such a radical proponent of gay marriage that anyone whose faith teaches to the contrary, anyone whose faith teaches that marriage is a sacrament of one man and one woman, a holy union before God, the far-left views that religious view as unacceptable and they’re trying to use the machinery of the law to crush those religious views. And I think it is wrong, I think it is intolerant, and I think it is entirely inconsistent with who we are as a people.”Ted Cruz, on the Dana Loesch Show
So.....because the dominant religious faith says that something is wrong...based on something they believe in, intolerance only exists on one side of the argument. And while proclaiming that 'special rights' must be avoided at all costs, we should carve out 'special rights' for a privileged segment of society...based on something they believe. Yep....sounds like religious liberty to me. /sarc
This calls for a compromise. Those opposed to gay marriage can refuse service to anyone they deem participating in such a civil ceremony....and those who engage in such can themselves be refused service by others. In return, the civil right that the party of the first part are privileged to engage in.....is extended without opposition to all American citizens.
It's not a compromise, really.
ReplyDeleteReligious institutions are not required to sanction gay marriages and I if that changes it will be because of change in the respective congregations.
A decision is made that equal protection requires that gays be granted access to the civil contract of marriage and that becomes a "far left" view. Seems like sensible application of jursiprudence.
But isn't it time to quit giving Cruz the pulpit?
The only reason he drones on is to excite the base to generate local turnout to elect a few religious freaks on the undercard.
He has no national possibilities anymore than Mike Pence now does.
Decent enough summary, Duckster.
DeleteTed Cruz will never be president. He won't even get the nomination.
ReplyDeleteFights like this war predictable when we have a government that confiscates all our rights and puts them in a big pile and then forces us to play mother may I to get some of them back.
This is the world we live in. The founders weren't being glib when they called it an experiment. The dipshits in DC blew it up playing with the chemistry set long ago.
Your probably right. Pul just announced today, and he's already pandering. Huckabee will announce, and he's claiming that churches will cease to exist soon. It's Jeb's for the taking. Meaning that Hillary ha a lock...because, really...what's the difference?
DeleteGood point about the pile of rights.
SF,
Deletea government that confiscates all our rights and puts them in a big pile and then forces us to play mother may I to get some of them back
Upvote!
America has indeed devolved to that tragic state of affairs.
There should be absolutely no "compromises" when it comes to discrimination. And, make no mistake, this is about the bigoted Right's desire to discriminate against gay people.
ReplyDeleteNot against divorced people or adulterers or any others they believe to be engaging in activity prohibited by the Bible. You've never heard about owers of a bakery (thinking they're holding to their religious principles) refusing to sell a wedding cake to a couple consisting of one or more previously divorced persons, have you?
You raise a good point. Christian business owners serve sinners each and every day, at least because of the assertion that every person is a sinner. Some owners wish to pick and choose which sinners they would 'feel' better in serving.
DeleteI still oppose your paradigm where free and voluntary association should be subordinate to the dictates of the State.
CI said: "I still oppose your paradigm where free and voluntary association should be subordinate to the dictates of the State."
DeleteDoes your own view on this extend to the rights of workers to join or not join unions, according to the individual worker's own choice and interest?
CT is a right to fire state and so technically I could have been dusted yesterday because my size 33 pants were a little too snug (yes, it was obvious). Human beings discriminate all the time (a black lesbian that I work with only dates white and Hispanic chicks, for example) and for the government to have step in and negotiate good versus bad discrimination (hell, it was progressive icon and eugenist, Woodrow Wilson, who set the table for government discrimination) is a bridge too far, in my opinion.
DeleteAnd I'm wondering if wd will ever step up and condemn the Muslim businesses (vociferously as he does with non-Muslims - calling them names, etc.) that have also said that they wouldn't serve gay folks.......Or the Native-American tribes that have stood opposed.......And what about the Catholic priest who refuses to marry gay folks? Should he be coerced, too?
DeleteWill, do you support right to fire?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI do, absolutely.
DeleteYes. Right to fire makes sense. A person who is present on your property for no good reason, against your will, is really a trespasser, aren't they?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWill: And I'm wondering if wd will ever step up [blah blah blah].
DeleteI condemn all bigotry, no matter who the perp is. Especially if the bigot is located in the United States. Other societies are on their own trajectory toward equality. Right now we are further along the path toward equality than the Muslim world.
Will fails to realize this (or he ignores this fact). Remember that England abolished slavery quite a while before the United States. And, even though equal rights for all people has been a work progress throughout the history of the entire world, Will believes it is valid to criticize other countries and other societies based on OUR (as in the US) current modern day standards of equality. As opposed to viewing people's biases as a product of their time/society.
This is the fallacy he uses to attack Muslim countries. Not that we can't try to move them in the right direction. But with Will - the fact that they are at the same place on this issue as we are - that is what he uses to justify his hate.
In any case, I'm waiting to see if you step up to the plate and FINALLY take the side of a Black man gunned down by a White cop.
This time will have video that clearly shows the cop planting a stun gun he says the victim "grabbed". Without the video Will likely would have already authored a post defending the cop. So far, only silence from Will on his blog. Is it because this time he can't go with the White guy's version, as he has a long history of doing?
Correction: my paradigm is that business licenses should not be granted to those who wish to discriminate (or their license should be revoked if they do). Who is reframing one's argument now?
ReplyDeleteI also reject Will Hart's agrgument in favor of a gay version of "separate but equal"... Based (in part) on his belief that the gay couple shouldn't want to do business with that establishment anyway. And that there SURELY is a duplicate (but gay friendly) business in the community (even if the community is small and there is only one bakery or florist).
There's no correction; you want the State to regulate and apply punitive measures in regards to free and voluntary association in the market. That's your paradigm...why don't you own it?
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you own the fact that your Libertarian logic of "my right to my labor" and "voluntary association" enables discrimination?
ReplyDeleteI never argued that it didn't; only that discrimination both wasn't my pursuit, and is subordinate to liberty.
DeleteThe "liberty" to discriminate trumps the right to not be discriminated against, in other words. I pointed this out previously and you proffered a flat denial.
DeleteYou do not have the right to do business in the public sphere. You do business in the public sphere by contract with the public. You accept money that is the currency of the republic. You abide by the public standards of your field. Certainly civil rights trump business dealings. Libertarians will never be taken seriously until they drop this illogical, anti-social nastiness. Business is NOT the friggin' be all and end all of human existence.
DeleteJMJ
Jersey, do you even read what you post? You want to claim that you have a 'right' to not be discriminated against in the market, yet you deny that a citizen even has a right to enter the market in the first place???
DeleteAnd you surely know that a Liberals view of the seriousness of Libertarians rates exactly on par with where you would consider a Libertarians view on Liberals, right?
I'm okay with counting myself among the liberals, CI. Jon Stewart had a funny joke about Libertarianism last night. The punch line was "so, you're 26, and you're still a libertarian."
DeleteThis is about doing business, for money, in the public sphere. If ever there was a choice, THAT is a choice. And your right to do business, which is given you by the community, does not trump the rights of the people of that community. I really don't know what you're not getting here.
JMJ
What you're not getting is the you seem to be denying that a citizen has a right to dispense with ones labor, one's goods or services....yet you claim that there exists a right to be served one's labor.
DeleteAnd you should be proud to be considered a Liberal. Your positions would make you seem mighty confused were you to declare yourself anything else.
DeleteNo one is forcing you to do business. That is your choice. If you so choose, then you must abide the rules of that business as per the community. You, like a small, child, simply want to do whatever you want, with no recourse. I'm sorry, but that is a short-sighted and immature appeal.
DeleteJMJ
The power of licensing is the power to control.
ReplyDeleteI make this statement as one who holds as business license (local, for purposes of traffic control in my neighborhood if I hold private tutoring sessions or give private piano lessons here at my house, but primarily for the purposes of taxing my gross receipts).
So far, the kind of license which I hold doesn't control the content of my teaching. But if I were to live long enough, I think that the license could indeed extend that far.
Yep. When we have a society where a citizen must pay a tax to open, be likenesses and then insured, to cut dried flowers.......we have lost our way as a society pursuing liberty.
DeleteExactly: CI. The "Public Sphere" can make or break a business by choosing not to patronize it. That is the best way for it to be. The use of licensing should be minimized, certainly. Then the choices in regards to the business' success end up with the people, not the state.
DeleteThe power of license is the power to control, as AOW says. This should only happen in very few, very rare circumstances. Outside of this, the idea of state "control" of all of these private affairs of the people is an iron dream; fascism.
The idea that people would need permission of a few ruling elites to open any business at all is very "North Korea".
It currently costs over a half a million dollars just to start a cab business in NYC. And in numerous other communities, prospective businesses are hampered from even entering the market in the first place (some idiotic construct called a "Certificate of Necessity") due to the cronyism between the existing businesses and the pols. Liberals love to talk about income inequality and yet they continue to bitch-slap small businesses with such moronic regulations and licensing requirements that accentuate the trend. Totally unbelievable.
DeleteWill: argument that this is good in order to crush plutocrats? Of course that can be correctly interpreted that small business, new business is all plutocrats.
DeleteSo I guess that if someone writes a book I can photocopy it and sell it as my own (for example). Remember that copyright is one of the rules that govern the marketplace. But libertarians want to chuck all the rules and enable this kind of dishonesty/theft.
DeleteAnd I should be able to offer my services as a heart surgeon despite not having a medical degree or ever studying any kind of medicine... Because licensing is "very North Korean".
What utter absurdity.
Straw man attack. I said licensing should be for rare, actually necessary situations. Heart surgeons are rare.
DeleteI said that the idea of licensing all businesses is very North Korea. And a bad idea. attacking this as absurd does put you in the "license eveeything" camp.
And again, the idea of "chucking" all rules or laws is not part of Liberttarianism.
You can try but you would be sued and humiliated (libertarians are quite in favor of a just judicial system).......As for the surgeon thing, only an idiot would go to a practitioner with zero experience and qualifications.
DeleteCopyright has nothing to do with theft, anyway. But it does involve unauthorized duplication.
DeleteIn California a person needs a license to shampoo hair. That is insanity and talk about a policy that promotes income inequality, that would be one!
DeleteJMJ: Libertarians will never be taken seriously until they drop this illogical
ReplyDeleteAgreed. With the Libertarians will never be taken seriously part. As for dropping that which makes Libertarianism illogical... well, then they would no longer be Libertarians.
CI: What you're not getting is the you seem to be denying that a citizen has a right to dispense with one's labor, one's goods or services....
One has the right to enter the market and play by the rules established by the public. If they don't like the rules they have the right to not dispense with their labor, goods or services.
CI: we have lost our way as a society pursuing liberty.
There are no modern day first world societies where this is the case (give me an example if you believe me to be wrong). Most of the world has "lost it's way" according to the Libertarians. There is a reason for this. A society based on Libertarianism flat out would not work. This is why there have never been any societies based on Libertarianism nor will there ever be. But one must remember that Libertarianism is based on illogic.
You surely must know by now that I'm not a bit interested in the rhetorical treatises on Libertarianism, proffered by Statist Liberals.....so I'm not quite sure why you would expend your own time in thinking that I am.
DeleteWe're not, and have not been discussing how the State actually intervenes in the market. We're discussing why the State should or shouldn't. We already know that in order to actually participate in the 'free' market, one pay pay fealty to the State in order to exercise one's rights. And you're fine with that. But your house of contrived outrage is built upon sand.
Once again, you and Jersey attempt to position your perceived right to my labor above my actual right to my labor. Trying to demean Libertarianism from a position of Statism is quite laughable, but I award you credit for trying.
One must be careful not to misleadingly claim that the "rules" established by the very few in control of the state, the government, are the "rules of the people". The rules of the government are those that are forced on the people. That is the nature of law.
DeleteCI said: "Trying to demean Libertarianism from a position of Statism..."
ReplyDeleteYes, attacking the idea of rights for the people from the opposing view of rights for just those few in power is indeed laughable.
dmarks: Yes, attacking the idea of rights for the people from the opposing view of rights for just those few in power is indeed laughable.
DeleteWhat's laughable is that Jersey or I made this argument. We argue in favor for rights for The People as well as (democratically determined) rules that keep things fair for all the people. Libertarians argue for the for "rights" of the plutocrats to manipulate the market for their benefit (and to the detriment of The People).
Everyone but Libertarians know rules are necessary in order to keep things fair and discourage and punish cheating. Although I personally believe that some Libertarians (the non-dupes) approve of cheating and dishonesty in the market because it largely benefits the wealthy.
Every Libertarian I have ever met or read favors rules. Seems a straw man attack? Libertarians aren't anarchists, after all.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deletedmarks: Every Libertarian I have ever met or read favors rules. Seems a straw man attack?
DeleteNo straw man. I have been consistently arguing just this and both you and CI have argued no rules are necessary. You JUST referred to the need for rules as "rights for just those few in power". Now you're changing your mind? Or will you delete what you wrote and accuse me of "faking" a quote?
Reminder... This is what you wrote earlier in this thread concerning rules...
dmarks: One must be careful not to misleadingly claim that the "rules" established by the very few in control of the state, the government, are the "rules of the people". The rules of the government are those that are forced on the people. That is the nature of law.
Some libertarians are anarchists (anarcho capitalists they are called) but most are not (I'm surely not).......And as far as regulations go, yeah, we probably need some but the fact of the matter is that many regulations make matters worse (the law of unintended consequences), disproportionately harm small businesses, and in some instances even kill folks (CAFE standards on cars, the FDA keeping drugs off the market, etc.). Less is better, in my opinion.
DeleteI don't need a reminder. I know I said it. I stand beside it. And because I am aware of this, I know that these rules (laws) while often necessary, need to be enacted carefully and with complete regard to the framework of our Constitution, and without the careless (and awful) idea that just because laws come from a "democratic" government, they are all great.
ReplyDeleteAnd nowhere have I argued that "no rules are necessary". Never, anywhere. CI can speak for himself. I know my views overlap his some, though.
dmarks: ...nowhere have I argued that "no rules are necessary". Never, anywhere.
ReplyDeleteActually, you did (both you and CI) argue that. But it's good if you're now changing your mind. Even dmarks can, amazingly, admit he was wrong.
I'm surprised he didn't pull a "faked quote" to get out of this contradiction (his new position versus his old position).
I'd love to see you cite where I ever stated that I favor no rules are necessary. You won't, because you can't. You are ever so inclined however, to project what you'd like the argument to be...when you're not spending your time worrying about personality based perceptions of insult. Was your lunch money taken often when you were young?
DeleteWhen a private bunnies owner engages with a customer or an employee, they enter into a contract. The terms of said contract should always be enforced, if breached by fraud, theft of services or some other assault upon the business or its proprietor.....likewise if the same occurs against the customer.
But of course, when one does't know the basic economics of market forces, I have come to expect nothing less than the aforementioned projection.
CI said: "When a private bunnies owner engages with a customer or an employee,"
DeleteSome people have the view that the State has the divine right to steal your rabbits. A divine right granted by the abused-word "democracy", the dialectic of history, being appointed by God, or any other such similar excuse used throughout human history to justice the rulers preying on the people.
These people keep looking for excuses to justify their own bootlicking worship of those who wield power, instead of seeking to protect out rights.
I have changed my views on many things on many the years. But not this. I have always thought that at least some law/rules are necessary. You won't find me saying otherwise. There's no "actually" that either of us ever did.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCI: I'd love to see you cite where I ever stated that I favor no rules are necessary. You won't, because you can't.
ReplyDeleteWow! This is too easy!
Previously you referred to necessary rules/regulations as "artificial influence" and that markets are governed by the laws of supply and demand. Exclusively - you implied - as your use of "artificial influence" is obviously a pejorative (and why include an "artificial influence" if it is BAD)? This is "Economics 101" according to your prior comment.
CI: The market is governed by the laws of supply and demand. Government regulation is artificial influence. Economics 101... you should look into it. (3/30/2015 at 3:27pm)
And here you deride "democratically passed laws" - Rules you now say you've "never" said aren't necessary...'
CI: when you press your staple of how 'democratically passed laws' should trump market forces. (3/30/2015 at 4:30pm)
Here you call our system of regulations "byzantine" and put quotes around "necessary"... Strongly implying no rules are necessary and that no rules being needed is "common sense"... Not that I necessarily disagree that our system of regulations are "byzantine". I never said ALL rules/regulations AS THEY EXIST are necessary. Only that some kind of system of rules is necessary.
CI: You call the byzantine system of regulations "necessary". Common sense tells us otherwise. (3/30/2015 at 10:28pm)
Then, when asked how the market would operate without rules, you said...
CI: The same way that they've historically operated. Supply and demand. (3/30/2015 at 10:28pm)
Now you've suddenly changed your mind...
CI: When a private bunnies owner engages with a customer or an employee, they enter into a contract. The terms of said contract should always be enforced, if breached by fraud, theft of services or some other assault upon the business or its proprietor.....likewise if the same occurs against the customer.
Now you're in favor of "government coercion"? Even though you CLEARLY stated (multiple times) that you favor rule by "supply and demand" only. Rules/regulations, you say, are not necessary and are an "artificial influence". Interesting. Unless you think the coercion should only take place when the business is selling bunnies. Although I'm guessing that was a typo.
BTW, quite some time ago I SPECIFICALLY mentioned enforcement of contracts (here)...
CI scoffed and attempted to (falsely) assert that I was unaware that supply and demand drives markets. If you actually believed that enforcement of contracts is a proper role for our democratically elected government... THAT would have been the time to say so. You didn't.
dmarks: I have changed my views on many things on many the years. But not this.
ReplyDeleteIf you disagreed with CI why didn't you say so? Instead you've been enthusiastically agreeing with ALL that CI has been espousing about no rules being necessary. Even referring to rules governing the market as "fascism". Because "supply and demand" governs the market. While it is a total fantastical view that this would be enough, this *is* what Libertarians believe... so dmarks' claims that "Libertarians aren't anarchists" to refute my comment is a straw man. I never said Libertarianisms want anarchy. And you most certainly *did* agree with CI about no rules being necessary.
Although I'm guessing the reason you agreed is that you couldn't stop yourself from kissing CI's ass. And you simply wished to disagree with ANYTHING I said. Now you admit I was correct... although you dishonestly frame your admission as me putting up a straw man.
dmarks: ...just because laws come from a "democratic" government, they are all great.
Another dmarks straw man. Our laws/regulations are NOT "all great". I previously agreed they are not "all great", saying "Of course there are bad laws" (here).
Maybe dmarks missed this. Although I suspect he missed it on purpose. Because he OFTEN continues saying I think (or have said something) even when I have told him multiple times I don't think it (one example being that I think Mom & Pop small business owners are plutocrats).
This is evidence of the weakness of dmarks' arguments - that he HAS to misrepresent (and outright lie) when he debates. It's because he can't win based on the strength of his arguments.
Why can't you simply argue an issue on it's merits? You wound't come off as such a boor. Why display such childish tantrums based on perceived personality based conflict?
DeleteDervish: CI has never said that "no rules are necessary". So there is no way I could have disagreed with him for saying that, since he never did. Something CI had never espoused.
DeleteCareful, you'll be accused of being a sycophant. It's in the playbook...right after duck, dodge and deflect.
DeleteI'm still waiting for him to explain the Founders intentions behind the 2nd Amendment, and how it's been 'misinterpreted'.
Yes, he has accused me of bring an "a**-kisser" because we have general agreement about the sanity of the free market vs the insanity of a command economy.
DeleteAside from his anal obsession, it shows a an obsession with imaginary cliqueshness and "sides" instead of truth.
Yes, he has accused me of bring an "a**-kisser" because we have general agreement about the sanity of the free market vs the insanity of a command economy.
DeleteAside from his anal obsession, it shows a an obsession with imaginary cliqueshness and "sides" instead of truth.
CI said: "Careful, you'll be accused of being a sycophant"
Deleteyes, and Mr Sanders will again keep referring to oral-anal content, which is relevant to scores of explicit sexual comments he left on my blog after he was knocked down for his tantrums.
Isn't it cute when a squirrel thinks he's found a nut? You think it's easy because you're confused.
ReplyDeletePay attention, I'll type slowly just for you. Supply and demand are the market forces. A market cannot exist without both being present. A market can easily exist, as they have for centuries, without State intervention. It's basic economic theory....one which you clearly didn't learn in grade school.
Breach of contract considerations aren't external market drivers, no matter how much you'd like them to be so. External, State market influences are artificial and not tied to breaches of contract.....because these issues occur without State influence on the market.
I put quotes around 'necessary' because you falsely frame that State influence is a critical driver of market forces. You wish to believe, and project, that I favor no rule of law, because that is the only way your paltry argument would have a chance of appearing sound....but you cannot even illustrate a basic understanding of the free market.
Contract law is not a driver of the market; just as theft, fraud or other injurious action is not a driver of the market.
Once again you didn't, because you couldn't. You tried, but alas....once again fell short.
People who are hypersensitive about being correctly summarized as calling small business owners "plutocrats" should refrain from such errors that have been seen in these recent discussions: bringing plutocrats into discussions concerning the State harassing small business owners.
ReplyDeleteCI: ...you falsely frame that State influence is a critical driver of market forces.
ReplyDeleteI did not. I used the word "govern". Go back and check. I did not use the word "driver". I never said regulations "drive" the market. Your defense of your original incorrect assertion that regulation does not govern the market falls short. Because you completely fail to address this original incorrect assertion. Although you attempt to divert attention from this fact by throwing in a lot of ad hominem.
CI: I'm still waiting for him to explain the Founders intentions behind the 2nd Amendment, and how it's been 'misinterpreted'.
Yeah, I've been ignoring your assertion that you're "still waiting" because I made my case in the original discussion - and I stand by what I said there. I have no idea why you're still waiting. Likely because you think you can win the argument (while reminding readers of your "win") by falsely asserting I never responded.
dmarks: ...the sanity of the free market vs the insanity of a command economy.
You mean the insanity of the "free market". What you call the "free market" does not even exist. Our markets are regulated, as they should be. And now dmarks is backtracking, given he JUST SAID he "always thought that at least some law/rules are necessary". dmarks must be making himself dizzy.
And it was CI who brought up a "command economy". Which is something I would strongly oppose.
dmarks: People who are hypersensitive about being correctly summarized as calling small business owners "plutocrats"...
dmarks is "hypersensitive" about being called out for lying. This is an abject falsehood which has been disproven elsewhere.
I made my case in the original discussion - and I stand by what I said there.
DeleteI just feel pity for you now. You premised your case on the statement that the 2nd Amendment had been "misinterpreted"; then when asked to provide some sort of foundation for the Framers intent for the Amendment, that would prove your assertion.....you conveniently moved on.....
So you say.
DeleteIndeed I do. It's a matter of public record.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletedmarks: ...If this is true, than it does mean he strongly opposes socialism. That would be a welcome change, to have someone abandon...
ReplyDeleteI can't "abandon" something I've never supported. I've always opposed the "command economy" form of socialism and always supported democratic socialism and a mixed economy - as do a majority of Americans (even if they don't embrace the term "democratic socialism" because demonization of the term by the Right and Libertarians). Because socialism works and socialism saves lives.
dmarks: CI earlier said - "Why can't you simply argue an issue on it's merits?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Hilarious. Both CI's original comment and dmarks quote of it. CI continually insults and dmarks misrepresents arguments. Both have problems arguing their positions based solely on their merits. Although dmarks' problem is MUCH larger. His arguments are so weak he has to resort to lies that have me "praising Stalin".
Now watch him throw another tantrum and insist he told the truth. Or sputter and complain and whine again about a "fan blog" where his lies are documented.
dmarks: His "long standing beef" is still hanging out.
You're imagining my "beef" "hanging out" RIGHT NOW, aren't you? I think dmarks needs to find himself a boyfriend.
Socialism is demonized by its legacy and adherents... from Mao and Hitler to Assad and Milosevic. It's all, for the most part oppression and mass killing, even if the oppressors get into power thru elections rather than bloody coups. We'd be much better off if socialism were entirely abolished. It works at oppression, and it kills, if you look at the big picture instead of cherry-picking the few socialists who aren't out to kill a lot of people.
ReplyDeleteThe "praising Stalin" discussion dates back to when Mr. Sanders brought up in support a truly awful and untrue quotation from Stalin he used as parf of his excuse to kill tens of millions. A quotation that deserve nothing but condemnation, along with the man. Not support.
" I think dmarks needs to find himself a boyfriend."
You seem obsessed with that. This much was clear when you decided to start sending me scores and scores of blog messages in which you decided to talk about nothing but your p*nis.
Oh. and about the fan blogs? You've had several each of these mancrush blogs for me, Will, Rational Nation, and others. Thing is, the only lies involved in them have been your own.
dmarks: We'd be much better off if socialism were entirely abolished.
ReplyDeleteNow dmarks is advocating stealing. People paid in to Social Security and are entitled to what they paid for. Although I will point out that this will never happen. Social Security has widespread support, even among Republicans... So dmarks' dream of returning to a time when elderly people died of starvation, lack of medical care, or by freezing to death in the winter is not going to happen.
dmarks: You seem obsessed with that.
No, I'm creeped out by your obsession with "long standing beefs hanging out" and "weinergrams" - dmarks' words, not mine.
dmarks: ...you decided to start sending me scores and scores of blog messages in which you decided to talk about nothing but your p*nis.
dmarks is referring to his fantasy again. This is actually something that never happened.
dmarks: You've had several each of these mancrush blogs...
I have zero "mancrush blogs". This is another of your fantasies.
dmarks: The "praising Stalin" discussion dates back to when Mr. Sanders brought up in support a truly awful and untrue quotation from Stalin...
I never brought up an "untrue quote" from anyone.
People paid in to Social Security and are entitled to what they paid for.
DeleteYou DO realize of course, that the Social Security program is an automatic deduction from a citizens income, that was NOT voted on by the PEOPLE, right? Should I, as a citizen, not have a right to the fruits of MY labor, to dispense with as I please, whither that be for richer or poorer?
I have zero "mancrush blogs".
Although I have little interest in the internet feud between you too........dmarks comment has every bit as much validity as yours regarding asskissing.
Stalin's statement, a reason for him to kill people ( and a justification for the greedy and lazy to kill people and steal their property in general), is quite untrue and is a slander based on stereotype and not fact.
DeleteIt's very off topic, but if a person were to bring up and support Stalin's actual statement ( and by logical extension, the rivers of, blood that flowed from it), such a person might cross the line from being merely an amusing buffoon to being a scary psycho.
Because hating people that are actually good at something and earn good money for it ("the rich") is very similar to hating Jews. Not becuase Jews are rich; but because such attitudes for both groups targeted for death revel in unwarranted bigotry and coveting. Pure naked greed. People who would rather steal from and kill those who are good at something rather than actually doing something productive themselves.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteProgressive taxation (which we have in the US) has not resulted in "rivers of blood". Believing those who make more should pay a higher tax is rate not "hate". I would call it hate, however, when someone wishes to abolish all social programs. Because that will result in people dying. Whereas if the wealthy have to pay a little more in taxes - they will be just fine.
DeleteNot only is your comment off topic, it is pure idiocy. And very disrespectful to Jewish people (bordering on antisemitism). Venture capital pioneer Tom Perkins made a similar idiotic comment, people were understandably offended, and he ended up issuing a (bogus and insincere) apology. dmarks is simply pulling a page out of the Conservative playbook with this offensive garbage.
dmarks: ...and by logical extension...
Your "extension" is completely illogical. The people you slander do not want to steal. They want a fair wage as opposed to the lowest wage that "the market" will set. dmarks is the one endorsing greed.
The only greed here is the arrogance of an employee feeling entitled to more of the emoloyer's property (money) than they have actually earned.
DeleteInstead of earning more money, they want it just handed to them.
See the iron law of wages. Only someone who worships wealth and whos worldview is greed-based (in that they cheer when income inequality grows) would argue that those not content with the minimum wage necessary to sustain the life of the worker is "naked greed". The only naked greed here is that endorsed by dmarks (his belief that taking advantage of workers and swelling the ranks of the working poor is awesome).
DeleteCI: You DO realize of course, that the Social Security program is an automatic deduction from a citizens income, that was NOT voted on by the PEOPLE, right?
ReplyDeleteI can't "realize" something that isn't true. You truly don't understand how our representative democracy works, do you?
Wait, are you trying to say that I CAN opt out of social security? Or just that any law passed, must surely be just and Constitutional.....just like the RFRA, right?
DeleteYou can vote for a representative that supports or does not support Social Security. That's democracy. As for Constitutionality, Social Security has stood the test if time. It is here to stay. Nobody is going to challenge it in court. The Indiana RFRA is another matter. We will have to wait and see if anyone brings a case forward.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, looks like you just confirmed how clueless you are about how these things work.
If you think we've been discussing the realpolitik of our current system you've been confused and wasting our time. We've been discussing the justification and Constitutionality of how this system operates. But nice dodge, it means you think you don't have to provide a logical foundation for your premise. Laws you like = Constitutional. Laws you don't like = unConstitutional.
DeleteOf course nobody is going to challenge SS, once an entitlement is enacted, it's here to stay. That's one of the more saddening aspects of our society; the willingness to surrender individual sovereignty anytime a political offers money.
Yes, CI... money forcibly taken from others.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe Supreme Court ruled Social Security to be constitutional under the General Welfare clause.
Deletedmarks: Yes, CI... money forcibly taken from others.
You say "forcibly taken", the Constitution says this is a just and proper role of the federal government.
What this shows is neither CI nor dmarks have a logical foundation for their premises. Laws they like = Constitutional. Laws they don't like = unConstitutional.
Libertarians hate the general welfare clause, but it is a part of the constitution. Put in there to provide flexibility in providing for the needs and wants of the people.
Feel free to come back when you have an original thought.
DeleteGood though, to know that you agree with the Heller decision. It too, was found to be Constitutional.
CI: Good though, to know that you agree with the Heller decision.
DeleteI acknowledge the ruling. Anyway, what you're saying is that it does not matter what the Supreme Court says. Only what Libertarians have to say in regards to the Constitution matters.
Has reading comprehension always been a problem for you?
DeleteReading comprehension has never been a problem for me.
DeleteGiven the manner in which you project your paradigm of what you think that I believe.......I'm not entirely convinced.
DeleteI'd honestly be more than happy to discuss the merits of any given issue with you.....sans blanket statements on Libertarianism or personal pejoratives. I for one, welcome honest debate.
It either serves to educate me further.....or it makes my position that much stronger.
I have yet to see any evidence of the former. Only for the later. I doubt I've written even one comment on this blog that hasn't "made your position stronger".
DeleteI have never advocated stealing. In fact, if we abolish SS, less of people's property would be forcibly taken from their paychecks.
ReplyDelete"So dmarks' dream of returning to a time when elderly people died of starvation, lack of medical care, or by freezing to death in the winter is not going to happen"
I never advocated such, but false claims from Mr. Sanders are nothing new. But let's play his game: I easily find newspaper articles about seniors starving, freezing, etc. All of the the things that Mr. Sanders said that social security abolished. Yet they happen still. Mr. Sanders bogus "returning to a time" argument only helps the case that we must abolish SS. Because the tragedies he said that SS was so important to stop are still happening. It's not even succeeding at what it is supposed to do.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletedmarks: It's not even succeeding at what it is supposed to do.
ReplyDeleteThat is a favorite argument of those who hate the poor and wish them dead... If a government program has problems they say abolish it... As opposed to fixing and strengthening it.
As for your denials concerning stealing people's Social Security... I guess this just shows your ignorance regarding this program. Or that you lie. Or that you want to add massively to the debt. Current workers pay for current retirees. There is a surplus (although it is invested in government bonds). If the government did not simply steal it they would have to pay it back. Obviously that would not work. I know Ron Paul has advocated phasing out such programs - but you said "abolish", not "phase out". It was therefore logical of me to assume you meant the money should simply be stolen.
Abolishing all social programs is a radical fringe idea anyway. Even Republicans realize this. Which is why they never propose abolishment. Although they do propose "fixes" designed to eventually destroy such programs. But they are smart enough to realize that suggesting abolishment will get them booted from office by the voters.
dmarks: I never advocated such, but false claims...
You've done so twice in this thread. Not explicitly, but by ignoring the events that would flow from a decision to "abolish all socialism". Which would be mass death and homelessness. Especially when it comes to vulnerable populations such as elderly and disabled people. But I'm sure you'll disagree... Without explaining how someone unable to work can live without money. That, is even *if* there were enough jobs. Which there are not.
Abolishing all Socialism has got to be the dumbest thing you've ever proposed.
dmarks: All of the the things that Mr. Sanders said that social security abolished.
It lessened them greatly. I did not use the word abolish. This is a game dmarks plays.
We have a 4,000 year recorded history of Government price (and wage) supports being nothing but an abject failure and yet the left continues to trot them out in their knight in shining armor manner over and over again.............I think that economist, Bryan Caplan, nailed it best when he said that those who understand the text (and I would suggest to wd that he get an introductory economics text and read it) are pro free-trade, pro-free-market, and pro-production while those who don't are anti-foreign (those on the right being anti-immigration, those on the left being anti-free-trade) anti-market, and pro-make-work.
ReplyDeleteWill: ...introductory economics text..
ReplyDeleteBaloney. Another claim similar to your laughable assertion concerning "introductory history texts" stating that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War.
Bryan Caplan, being an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, did not "nail it best". He gives the Libertarian wealthy-serving position.
.... did not "nail it best". He gives the Libertarian wealthy-serving position.
ReplyDeleteThe transparent premise behind his statement "I think that economist, Bryan Caplan, nailed it best...." was that of personal opinion; rendering your retort just as valueless as you claim his is.
I've been trying to figure out, do you simply have a lot of idle time on your hands.....or have you simply never been exposed to anything approaching formal debate?
I checked into Caplan. He did not give anything like a "wealthy-serving" position, a type of position which has nothing to do with libertarianism.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to look for a "wealthy-serving position", you need to look no further than than liberals, favoring handing out hundreds of billions to so many wealthy corporations, from banks to auto companies to Chinese energy related companies. Libertarians have an excellent position record against "wealthy-serving"... it's one of the main things that has attracted me to the ideology/group.
and here is an excellent article by CATO in which they shed light on and oppose this extremely costly type of "Wealthy-serving".
DeleteA type which the liberal Democrats lead the way on (the wrong way) with the Republicans close behind.